So basically Ferguson is a bit more pessimistic than fivethirtyeight on Trump's chances (<10% vs 12%). Doesn't seem like a particularly controversial viewpoint.
That's a solid set of polls for Biden but how good is SurveyMonkey? I note that 538 rate them D-
Interestingly its national poll suggests Trump is back to the 46% he got in 2016 but Biden has a clear lead as almost all the 2016 voters who voted for Other candidates are now backing him, though most other polls have Others on about 3% rather than the just 1% Survey Monkey has here
I'm hearing a rumour that NHS Supply Chain have run out of PPE equipment and are telling trusts to find their own.
That's really not good.
I mean, talking about PPE equipment is like talking about ATM machines, UFO objects and TLA acronyms
From a friend - who has sent enough bits from this source for me to trust him/her. Guy is "senior" in NHS England management. Has sent an internal query to other senior level directors about test results lost - twice - for the same symptomatic person. To be told "We can't fucking cope. This whole thing is a mess and I don't know how we can get through the winter".
Mr. Nichomar, isn't there some anger by female cyclists at trans cyclists consistently beating them?
Probably, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete in female events unless they are biologically female there is no rational argument to allow trans people to take part if they are biological males.
This issue which seems to get brought up as hugely significant when it really isn't is eerily familiar to the debate we had about gay rights, where it was thought legalising gay acts would lead to the corruption of children
It’s nothing like that it’s just logic if the sport is segregated then you can only compete if you are of the right biological gender, for everything else it’s up to them.
I agree, but you mean biological sex not gender. Sport is on sex lines not gender lines. That`s the confusion I think.
To all those derisive of the "Shy Trump" theory, 10 minutes on this site saying you would vote for Trump would soon give you plenty of reasons why someone may not say they want to vote for Trump.
To someone on this site possibly but to an opinion pollster???
I've been wondering whether some Never-Trumpers are actually going to end up voting Trump once they have an excuse to vote Republican - partisan habits being hard to break.
So they might tell pollsters that they will vote Biden, because an important part of their self-image is that they're opposed to someone as crude and ignorant as Trump. However, when it comes to making their mark on the ballot paper they might think of something like the tax cut, or the Supreme Court, or a minor Biden faux pas, as being an excuse to vote for Trump when they don't really want to, but, y'know those Democrats left them no choice.
This is a level of shyness that extends to not being willing to admit to supporting Trump to oneself.
To all those derisive of the "Shy Trump" theory, 10 minutes on this site saying you would vote for Trump would soon give you plenty of reasons why someone may not say they want to vote for Trump.
To someone on this site possibly but to an opinion pollster???
I've been wondering whether some Never-Trumpers are actually going to end up voting Trump once they have an excuse to vote Republican - partisan habits being hard to break.
So they might tell pollsters that they will vote Biden, because an important part of their self-image is that they're opposed to someone as crude and ignorant as Trump. However, when it comes to making their mark on the ballot paper they might think of something like the tax cut, or the Supreme Court, or a minor Biden faux pas, as being an excuse to vote for Trump when they don't really want to, but, y'know those Democrats left them no choice.
This is a level of shyness that extends to not being willing to admit to supporting Trump to oneself.
That's a level of shyness that would surely continue into the polling booth.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
I do not agree with the House of Lords in its current form, never mind the presence of bishops in it. However, the role of bishops is to give spiritual guidance and advice on such matters as basic morality and decency. Its not "interfering with politics" that the current government is immoral and indecent and they point this out.
If there were shy Trump voters you’d expect GOP Senate candidates to be doing better in their races . This isn’t the case where the vast majority are doing worse.
Even if you took the view that phone polls are inflating Bidens lead because of the shy voter and want to look at just online polling averages , Biden still leads comfortably .
In terms of respective leads at the same stage Biden v Clinton , this election is 5 days earlier than in 2016 so Trumps time to catch up is even less .
He also had Jewish ancestry, of course and was quite good at making comebacks. Albeit there AFAICS the similarities end.
What bothers me most about the things these muppets say is that they genuinely don't appear to see that they are racist. It's like Williamson blaming the fact everybody thinks he's an antisemite on a Zionist conspiracy and not seeing the irony of that.
To all those derisive of the "Shy Trump" theory, 10 minutes on this site saying you would vote for Trump would soon give you plenty of reasons why someone may not say they want to vote for Trump.
To someone on this site possibly but to an opinion pollster???
I've been wondering whether some Never-Trumpers are actually going to end up voting Trump once they have an excuse to vote Republican - partisan habits being hard to break.
So they might tell pollsters that they will vote Biden, because an important part of their self-image is that they're opposed to someone as crude and ignorant as Trump. However, when it comes to making their mark on the ballot paper they might think of something like the tax cut, or the Supreme Court, or a minor Biden faux pas, as being an excuse to vote for Trump when they don't really want to, but, y'know those Democrats left them no choice.
This is a level of shyness that extends to not being willing to admit to supporting Trump to oneself.
Yeah, I mean, we know voters rate Trump on the economy, and it's totally plausible that a few percent would decide to vote on that at the last minute. But I don't think that's really *shy* support - it's just changing your mind at the last minute.
Ah come on. There is nothing offensive about about the leader of Unite telling Mandy to go count his Jew Gold. Anyone feigning offence is guilty of spreading fake anti-semitism smears against Jezbollah and all the people who believe in Him.
Seriously though, this cancer in the Labour movement has to go. Starmer is going to need to expel a whole load of members before you are clean and decent.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Incidentally, on pedant corner, yesterday somebody claimed that prior to the Reformation Bishops outnumbered barons in the Lords. That is incorrect. Prior to the reformation there were 18 dioceses in the provinces of Canterbury and York, of which 17 were entitled to sit in the Lords (Sodor and Man being the exception, although the Lord of Man was also separately an English peer). At the lowest ebb of the peerage towards the end of the reign of Henry VII, around 50 peers were members of the Great Council of State.
Indeed, after 1536 the number of bishops increased by a third with the creation of new dioceses at Gloucester, Chester, Bristol, Peterborough, Oxford and Westminster (although Westminster was abolished again in 1550).
Mr. Nichomar, isn't there some anger by female cyclists at trans cyclists consistently beating them?
Probably, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete in female events unless they are biologically female there is no rational argument to allow trans people to take part if they are biological males.
This issue which seems to get brought up as hugely significant when it really isn't is eerily familiar to the debate we had about gay rights, where it was thought legalising gay acts would lead to the corruption of children
I don't accept that parallel.
The thing is, the vast majority of the time it really shouldn't matter what gender someone is - and hopefully it matters a lot less now than it did. So whether someone was born and raised a different gender to the one that they now present to the world would also not make any difference.
So the debate naturally fixates on that small number of occasions where it does make a difference, of which sex-segregated elite sport is one of the more obvious.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
It's also the party of the union and it turns out it doesn't give two sh*ts about that.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
Re Bolivia: It is the second poorest country in South America with only a quarter of the wealth per capita that Uruguay has. The poorest is of course Venezuela (formerly the richest). Bolivia may now become the new socialist icon but I bet many of them wouldn't actually want to live there.
In fairness, part of Bolivia's problem is losing the War of the Pacific to Chile. If they had all the minerals of Antofagasta it might be a different story.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
What has changed in the Labour Party? A very small number of the worst nutters have been booted / quit - but that happened under Corbyn as well. Constituency Parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites. Labour still suckle on the tit of Mad Len. SKS has said a few words but hasn't done anything.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
Isn't McCluskey scheduled to retire in the new year anyway?
If his preferred candidate loses I don't imagine he'll be retiring in a haze of glory either. Awkward questions remain about why he spent £2 million supporting a fake news website after it lost a libel case in spectacular fashion with even its own lawyer left bleating that it was so extreme and dishonest that nobody believed a word it wrote as the last line of defence.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
So what I think is wrong with the discussion about how Trump could win is that there's a tendency to try to turn it into a morality tale. Anti-Trump people want to say, "Trump is evil, so he might win by cheating". Pro-Trump people want to say, "You're being mean to us, and this will be your undoing, because your meanness made us lie to pollsters, and then you'll be sorry. Or you called us racists, but we're not, and you'll see we're right when the black people agree with us!"
These takes don't quite have *zero* truth to them, but if they're true then they're true at the margins. Dispassionately, Trump is unpopular generally, but the voters rate him on the economy. They probably won't vote mainly on the economy, because of the virus and the unusual scale of his other sources of unpopularity, but if they did it wouldn't be weird.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
What has changed in the Labour Party? A very small number of the worst nutters have been booted / quit - but that happened under Corbyn as well. Constituency Parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites. Labour still suckle on the tit of Mad Len. SKS has said a few words but hasn't done anything.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
Where is that report? We were promised it months ago.
Has it gone the way of the report into Tory Islamophobia?
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
Telling a Jew to count his gold is baseline anti-semitism. Lord Mandleson, Lord Levy, the Cash-for-Peerages scandal. Red Len knew exactly what he was saying.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
It's also the party of the union and it turns out it doesn't give two sh*ts about that.
Of course it does, the internal markets bill is mainly to ensure no border in the Irish Sea while Boris has made clear he will ban indyref2 as long as he remains PM
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
What has changed in the Labour Party? A very small number of the worst nutters have been booted / quit - but that happened under Corbyn as well. Constituency Parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites. Labour still suckle on the tit of Mad Len. SKS has said a few words but hasn't done anything.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
'Constituency parties ridden with anti-Semites' I would be very surprised if you could provide evidence of one constituency let alone multiple that are afflicted. There's hyperbole and then there's you on matters of the labour party. Hell hath no fury etc etc
Instead of these speculative and usually ill-informed threads (Mike isn't one of them) PLEASE could we have some threads on individuals state and senate battles? There are some wonderful battlegrounds taking place and they make for exciting betting opportunities.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
It's also the party of the union and it turns out it doesn't give two sh*ts about that.
Of course it does, the internal markets bill is mainly to ensure no border in the Irish Sea while Boris has made clear he will ban indyref2 as long as he remains PM
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Incidentally, on pedant corner, yesterday somebody claimed that prior to the Reformation Bishops outnumbered barons in the Lords. That is incorrect. Prior to the reformation there were 18 dioceses in the provinces of Canterbury and York, of which 17 were entitled to sit in the Lords (Sodor and Man being the exception, although the Lord of Man was also separately an English peer). At the lowest ebb of the peerage towards the end of the reign of Henry VII, around 50 peers were members of the Great Council of State.
Indeed, after 1536 the number of bishops increased by a third with the creation of new dioceses at Gloucester, Chester, Bristol, Peterborough, Oxford and Westminster (although Westminster was abolished again in 1550).
Wrong, before the Reformation the Lords spiritual comprised archbishops, diocesan bishops, abbots, and those priors who were entitled to wear a mitre and combined were the majority in the English House of Lords.
Read Donald Shell's 2007 work on the House of Lords and its history
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
What has changed in the Labour Party? A very small number of the worst nutters have been booted / quit - but that happened under Corbyn as well. Constituency Parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites. Labour still suckle on the tit of Mad Len. SKS has said a few words but hasn't done anything.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
'Constituency parties ridden with anti-Semites' I would be very surprised if you could provide evidence of one constituency let alone multiple that are afflicted. There's hyperbole and then there's you on matters of the labour party. Hell hath no fury etc etc
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
Telling a Jew to count his gold is baseline anti-semitism. Lord Mandleson, Lord Levy, the Cash-for-Peerages scandal. Red Len knew exactly what he was saying.
Maybe you`re right in this case.
All I can say is that if I`d made that comment about Mandelson it would have been intended to be a funny remark about his wealth. How would I know Mandelson is Jewish anyway? I can`t tell who is Jewish and don`t care anyway.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
Because you're a modern Conservative.
HYUFD's view of the Conservatives seems to be one dating from before Disraeli let alone anyone modern.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Incidentally, on pedant corner, yesterday somebody claimed that prior to the Reformation Bishops outnumbered barons in the Lords. That is incorrect. Prior to the reformation there were 18 dioceses in the provinces of Canterbury and York, of which 17 were entitled to sit in the Lords (Sodor and Man being the exception, although the Lord of Man was also separately an English peer). At the lowest ebb of the peerage towards the end of the reign of Henry VII, around 50 peers were members of the Great Council of State.
Indeed, after 1536 the number of bishops increased by a third with the creation of new dioceses at Gloucester, Chester, Bristol, Peterborough, Oxford and Westminster (although Westminster was abolished again in 1550).
Wrong, before the Reformation the Lords spiritual comprised archbishops, diocesan bishops, abbots, and those priors who were entitled to wear a mitre and combined were the majority in the English House of Lords.
Read Donald Shell's 2007 work on the House of Lords and its history
You said 'bishops', Hyufd. Mitred Abbots, to give them their correct title, were not bishops.
But even if they were, as there were only 27 of them from 1327, you would still be wrong.
Ah come on. There is nothing offensive about about the leader of Unite telling Mandy to go count his Jew Gold. Anyone feigning offence is guilty of spreading fake anti-semitism smears against Jezbollah and all the people who believe in Him.
Seriously though, this cancer in the Labour movement has to go. Starmer is going to need to expel a whole load of members before you are clean and decent.
I am afraid, it seems starting with Corbyn.
I have said consistently, if the report says he is to blame he should be kicked out - and I will use that as my ultimate source of truth.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Yes I'm a Thatcherite. Because that's a key part of the Conservative Party.
Your perverted twisted view of the Tory Party as a pre Disraeli extreme hardcore is not the Party.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
Telling a Jew to count his gold is baseline anti-semitism. Lord Mandleson, Lord Levy, the Cash-for-Peerages scandal. Red Len knew exactly what he was saying.
Maybe you`re right in this case.
All I can say is that if I`d made that comment about Mandelson it would have been intended to be a funny remark about his wealth. How would I know Mandelson is Jewish anyway? I can`t tell who is Jewish and don`t care anyway.
You and I may not know or care, but McClusky certainly does.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
I do not agree with the House of Lords in its current form, never mind the presence of bishops in it. However, the role of bishops is to give spiritual guidance and advice on such matters as basic morality and decency. Its not "interfering with politics" that the current government is immoral and indecent and they point this out.
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" Didn't work out well for anyone IIRC. Although worse, I suppose for Beckett, unless you believe in an after-life!
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
You are from the Trump school of Christian dogmatism and this moderate conservative rejects that narrow view of our party
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
When did BigG move from Sedgefield to North Wales?
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Yes I'm a Thatcherite. Because that's a key part of the Conservative Party.
Your perverted twisted view of the Tory Party as a pre Disraeli extreme hardcore is not the Party.
Thatcher, the reason I resigned my Tory membership 40+ years ago realizing I was a Liberal, best move I ever made
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Surely the key thing is that there's no way that disestablishment is getting past HMQEII. And threatening it just because some bishops (most of whom aren't even in the House of Lords) have publicly flagged some bad consequences of the IM bill might be thought to make those making the threats look a bit vindictive.
Much better to engage with the merits or otherwise of the case, I would have thought.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Centuries ago it did.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
Telling a Jew to count his gold is baseline anti-semitism. Lord Mandleson, Lord Levy, the Cash-for-Peerages scandal. Red Len knew exactly what he was saying.
Maybe you`re right in this case.
All I can say is that if I`d made that comment about Mandelson it would have been intended to be a funny remark about his wealth. How would I know Mandelson is Jewish anyway? I can`t tell who is Jewish and don`t care anyway.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
Well, perhaps they could start by not equating Judaism with wealth? Historically, many Jews were very poor (any social history of Poland or Latvia between the wars will show that).
And then they could make sure that they don't use anti-semitic tropes to describe people. Saying that Peter Mandelson no longer spoke for or fully understood working people as he has used his position to become rich would be fair enough. Saying that he should 'count his gold' raises all sorts of negative stereotypes.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Yes I'm a Thatcherite. Because that's a key part of the Conservative Party.
Your perverted twisted view of the Tory Party as a pre Disraeli extreme hardcore is not the Party.
Thatcher, the reason I resigned my Tory membership 40+ years ago realizing I was a Liberal, best move I ever made
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Surely the key thing is that there's no way that disestablishment is getting past HMQEII. And threatening it just because some bishops (most of whom aren't even in the House of Lords) have publicly flagged some bad consequences of the IM bill might be thought to make those making the threats look a bit vindictive.
Much better to engage with the merits or otherwise of the case, I would have thought.
HMQ does not have a say. If Parliament votes for it, it happens. The idea HMQ would say no is as farcical as the idea she should refuse prorogation: it is not her place to do so.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
What has changed in the Labour Party? A very small number of the worst nutters have been booted / quit - but that happened under Corbyn as well. Constituency Parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites. Labour still suckle on the tit of Mad Len. SKS has said a few words but hasn't done anything.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
Where is that report? We were promised it months ago.
Has it gone the way of the report into Tory Islamophobia?
Newsnight said it was going to be published soon, isn't it not up to Labour when it gets published?
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
I saw it differently - it did sound like an antisemitic trope to me. But you're entitled to take away something else and we don't all have the same references.
What surprised and worried me was Unite's response. They said in the statement Newsnight read out (essentially) "Firstly, he isn't actually Jewish. And, secondly, no fair minded person could possibly construe what Len said as antisemitic".
That's rather shocking, amounts to gaslighting those in the audience (like me) who gasped when they heard the comment, and points to the depth of the problem in some parts of the Labour movement. If you take McLuskey at his word and say he was having a go at Mandelson's wealth post-office and its consistency with socialist principles, then SURELY he'd have seen after the interview that his words as spoken MIGHT have been misconstrued? A proper response would have been, "I was mortified when I read the words in the interview back - I'd meant to make a point about the money Peter has made from his political service and my distaste for that, but I realise why people interpreted that as a reference to his Jewish heritage. I oppose antisemitism with every fibre of my being, and apologise for the offence caused."
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
Telling a Jew to count his gold is baseline anti-semitism. Lord Mandleson, Lord Levy, the Cash-for-Peerages scandal. Red Len knew exactly what he was saying.
Maybe you`re right in this case.
All I can say is that if I`d made that comment about Mandelson it would have been intended to be a funny remark about his wealth. How would I know Mandelson is Jewish anyway? I can`t tell who is Jewish and don`t care anyway.
You and I may not know or care, but McClusky certainly does.
I do accept that its perfectly possible to accidentally give AS abuse to someone you don't know is Jewish. In this case Len knows Mandy is Jewish. But doesn't think its possible for the left to be racist so how can it be AS?
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
What has changed in the Labour Party? A very small number of the worst nutters have been booted / quit - but that happened under Corbyn as well. Constituency Parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites. Labour still suckle on the tit of Mad Len. SKS has said a few words but hasn't done anything.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
'Constituency parties ridden with anti-Semites' I would be very surprised if you could provide evidence of one constituency let alone multiple that are afflicted. There's hyperbole and then there's you on matters of the labour party. Hell hath no fury etc etc
What exactly was anti-Semitic about the statement from the four at Waverley? Misguided maybe but not IMO displaying a prejudice against Jewish people. You'll find it in full here.
Mr. Nichomar, isn't there some anger by female cyclists at trans cyclists consistently beating them?
Probably, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete in female events unless they are biologically female there is no rational argument to allow trans people to take part if they are biological males.
This issue which seems to get brought up as hugely significant when it really isn't is eerily familiar to the debate we had about gay rights, where it was thought legalising gay acts would lead to the corruption of children
I don't accept that parallel.
The thing is, the vast majority of the time it really shouldn't matter what gender someone is - and hopefully it matters a lot less now than it did. So whether someone was born and raised a different gender to the one that they now present to the world would also not make any difference.
So the debate naturally fixates on that small number of occasions where it does make a difference, of which sex-segregated elite sport is one of the more obvious.
You being a sensible and considered individual whom I have much time for, I can accept making this argument in good faith and we can discuss it - but there are others who are anti-trans/anti-gay (not here) who just use your argument to cover up what is actually an issue with the concept of trans people.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
Doesn't Len earn a mint?
I genuinely don't know anyone even in the Labour movement who is a fan of Len's.
The widow of a man who was killed when a lorry ploughed into his stationary car on a smart motorway has said the wrong person has been jailed.
Alexandru Murgeanu and Jason Mercer died when Prezemyslaw Szuba crashed into their vehicles on a section of the M1 without a hard shoulder.
As I understand it, Smart Motorways are a net benefit in terms of safety, but of course we never know about the lives saved.
I'm not sure about that. Smart Motorways have been a way of widening motorways on the cheap by removing the hard shoulder rather than physically widening the road.
They have a wildly disproportionate number of serious accidents for their percentage of the motorway network, many of which involve vehicles being struck after breaking down in a live lane. It takes something like 17 minutes on average for them to spot a stationery vehicle in a live lane and sign it as closed, which is pretty poor really.
Against this, they are obviously some of busiest sections of motorway, so it's not unsurprising that they have more accidents compared to the network on average. What would be more revealing would be to compare the relative rates between the motorway network as a whole and what are now smart sections now, and say 10 years ago, and see how the relative rates compare.
The other question is how much do we value a life? Widening motorways properly is very expensive. I expect that it's not seen as worth the first extra cost for the lives it saves.
Interestingly, by comparison the main reason rail travel is cripplingly expensive in the UK is that any level of death is seen as unacceptable, and literally millions will be spent to save maybe a life a year. Unlike the road network, where it's accepted that some people will die, we go to huge lengths to prevent rail travelers from death, but the cost implications almost certainly actually cost lives in total as people drive instead as its cheaper!
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Surely the key thing is that there's no way that disestablishment is getting past HMQEII. And threatening it just because some bishops (most of whom aren't even in the House of Lords) have publicly flagged some bad consequences of the IM bill might be thought to make those making the threats look a bit vindictive.
Much better to engage with the merits or otherwise of the case, I would have thought.
HMQ does not have a say. If Parliament votes for it, it happens. The idea HMQ would say no is as farcical as the idea she should refuse prorogation: it is not her place to do so.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
When did BigG move from Sedgefield to North Wales?
Good point but I did vote for Blair hence the labour party twice
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
Doesn't Len earn a mint?
I genuinely don't know anyone even in the Labour movement who is a fan of Len's.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
What has changed in the Labour Party? A very small number of the worst nutters have been booted / quit - but that happened under Corbyn as well. Constituency Parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites. Labour still suckle on the tit of Mad Len. SKS has said a few words but hasn't done anything.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
Do you have actual evidence that "Constituency parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites". I suspect not. If you'd started the sentence with "A small number of......" I wouldn't disagree, but it doesn't apply to the bulk of CPs (and it never did).
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
He's the only gay Tory in the village. And Epping definitely is a village. A rural one. Not London commuterville complete with a tube station. Oh no.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
What has changed in the Labour Party? A very small number of the worst nutters have been booted / quit - but that happened under Corbyn as well. Constituency Parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites. Labour still suckle on the tit of Mad Len. SKS has said a few words but hasn't done anything.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
Do you have actual evidence that "Constituency parties are still run by and riddled with anti-semites". I suspect not. If you'd started the sentence with "A small number of......" I wouldn't disagree, but it doesn't apply to the bulk of CPs (and it never did).
Sorry did I say or suggest the bulk of them? I said Constituency Parties plural. As in more than one. There's half a dozen fingered on that single JC report. And twitter is awash with Jew-hating lunatics being outed.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Well said.
The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
Doesn't Len earn a mint?
I genuinely don't know anyone even in the Labour movement who is a fan of Len's.
He appears to get elected as Unite's General Secretary, and to have won praise from Corbynites for providing muscular support, so they clearly do exist in the Labour movement, I'm afraid.
A little reminder that the party as a whole has a lot of work to do before it is safe to run the country. The anti Semitic strand, to say nothing of the anti success strand runs so deep it's a sort of habit.
And if that is what experienced communicators say in public, how do less experienced anti Semites in the Labour party talk in private?
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
I am quite justified in saying you are both at most swing voters not Conservatives when neither of you voted for John Major or William Hague in 1997 and 2001 when the Tories still got almost a third of voters to vote for them but for Blair and New Labour. I was first eligible to vote at a general election in 2001 and cast my first vote for William Hague and the Tories.
I also have never voted for either UKIP or the Brexit Party at either a general election or a European election, at the European elections last year I still voted for the Tories even when Philip was voting for Farage and the Brexit Party.
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Well said.
The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Although even in the nineteenth century the Anglican Church was called 'the Conservative party at prayer.' And down to the 1920s there was a still a very strong Anglican element that was important electorally and administratively to the Unionists, as epitomised by Baldwin himself.
(I've found myself in the unusual position of offering a point in defence of Hyufd. It's most uncomfortable.)
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Centuries ago it did.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
It is, Disraeli was also a staunch monarchist, favourite of Queen Victoria and even converted to the Church of England
Comments
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1318471086237978624
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Jesus Christ
So they might tell pollsters that they will vote Biden, because an important part of their self-image is that they're opposed to someone as crude and ignorant as Trump. However, when it comes to making their mark on the ballot paper they might think of something like the tax cut, or the Supreme Court, or a minor Biden faux pas, as being an excuse to vote for Trump when they don't really want to, but, y'know those Democrats left them no choice.
This is a level of shyness that extends to not being willing to admit to supporting Trump to oneself.
Even if you took the view that phone polls are inflating Bidens lead because of the shy voter and want to look at just online polling averages , Biden still leads comfortably .
In terms of respective leads at the same stage Biden v Clinton , this election is 5 days earlier than in 2016 so Trumps time to catch up is even less .
What bothers me most about the things these muppets say is that they genuinely don't appear to see that they are racist. It's like Williamson blaming the fact everybody thinks he's an antisemite on a Zionist conspiracy and not seeing the irony of that.
Seriously though, this cancer in the Labour movement has to go. Starmer is going to need to expel a whole load of members before you are clean and decent.
Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
As an aside - I hear less from Niall Ferguson these days. The man the left forgot to hate?
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
Indeed, after 1536 the number of bishops increased by a third with the creation of new dioceses at Gloucester, Chester, Bristol, Peterborough, Oxford and Westminster (although Westminster was abolished again in 1550).
The thing is, the vast majority of the time it really shouldn't matter what gender someone is - and hopefully it matters a lot less now than it did. So whether someone was born and raised a different gender to the one that they now present to the world would also not make any difference.
So the debate naturally fixates on that small number of occasions where it does make a difference, of which sex-segregated elite sport is one of the more obvious.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
In fairness, part of Bolivia's problem is losing the War of the Pacific to Chile. If they had all the minerals of Antofagasta it might be a different story.
I know that he is sat on the report from EHRC. If he doesn't use it as a political flamethrower to remove all of these people for good, what use is he?
If his preferred candidate loses I don't imagine he'll be retiring in a haze of glory either. Awkward questions remain about why he spent £2 million supporting a fake news website after it lost a libel case in spectacular fashion with even its own lawyer left bleating that it was so extreme and dishonest that nobody believed a word it wrote as the last line of defence.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
These takes don't quite have *zero* truth to them, but if they're true then they're true at the margins. Dispassionately, Trump is unpopular generally, but the voters rate him on the economy. They probably won't vote mainly on the economy, because of the virus and the unusual scale of his other sources of unpopularity, but if they did it wouldn't be weird.
Has it gone the way of the report into Tory Islamophobia?
Read Donald Shell's 2007 work on the House of Lords and its history
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1318327938580946944
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
All I can say is that if I`d made that comment about Mandelson it would have been intended to be a funny remark about his wealth. How would I know Mandelson is Jewish anyway? I can`t tell who is Jewish and don`t care anyway.
HYUFD's view of the Conservatives seems to be one dating from before Disraeli let alone anyone modern.
But even if they were, as there were only 27 of them from 1327, you would still be wrong.
I have said consistently, if the report says he is to blame he should be kicked out - and I will use that as my ultimate source of truth.
Your perverted twisted view of the Tory Party as a pre Disraeli extreme hardcore is not the Party.
Didn't work out well for anyone IIRC.
Although worse, I suppose for Beckett, unless you believe in an after-life!
Much better to engage with the merits or otherwise of the case, I would have thought.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
And then they could make sure that they don't use anti-semitic tropes to describe people. Saying that Peter Mandelson no longer spoke for or fully understood working people as he has used his position to become rich would be fair enough. Saying that he should 'count his gold' raises all sorts of negative stereotypes.
https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-microwave-attacks
What surprised and worried me was Unite's response. They said in the statement Newsnight read out (essentially) "Firstly, he isn't actually Jewish. And, secondly, no fair minded person could possibly construe what Len said as antisemitic".
That's rather shocking, amounts to gaslighting those in the audience (like me) who gasped when they heard the comment, and points to the depth of the problem in some parts of the Labour movement. If you take McLuskey at his word and say he was having a go at Mandelson's wealth post-office and its consistency with socialist principles, then SURELY he'd have seen after the interview that his words as spoken MIGHT have been misconstrued? A proper response would have been, "I was mortified when I read the words in the interview back - I'd meant to make a point about the money Peter has made from his political service and my distaste for that, but I realise why people interpreted that as a reference to his Jewish heritage. I oppose antisemitism with every fibre of my being, and apologise for the offence caused."
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/reinstate-the-wavertree-four-defend-free-speech-and-party-democracy/
They have a wildly disproportionate number of serious accidents for their percentage of the motorway network, many of which involve vehicles being struck after breaking down in a live lane. It takes something like 17 minutes on average for them to spot a stationery vehicle in a live lane and sign it as closed, which is pretty poor really.
Against this, they are obviously some of busiest sections of motorway, so it's not unsurprising that they have more accidents compared to the network on average. What would be more revealing would be to compare the relative rates between the motorway network as a whole and what are now smart sections now, and say 10 years ago, and see how the relative rates compare.
The other question is how much do we value a life? Widening motorways properly is very expensive. I expect that it's not seen as worth the first extra cost for the lives it saves.
Interestingly, by comparison the main reason rail travel is cripplingly expensive in the UK is that any level of death is seen as unacceptable, and literally millions will be spent to save maybe a life a year. Unlike the road network, where it's accepted that some people will die, we go to huge lengths to prevent rail travelers from death, but the cost implications almost certainly actually cost lives in total as people drive instead as its cheaper!
Perhaps Andy Burnham should have tried to sit next to Jenrick at a dinner. It seems to be the only way to get the government to do anything for you.
gayTory in the village. And Epping definitely is a village. A rural one. Not London commuterville complete with a tube station. Oh no.The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Hope Starmer levers the sh*t out, though.
And if that is what experienced communicators say in public, how do less experienced anti Semites in the Labour party talk in private?
I also have never voted for either UKIP or the Brexit Party at either a general election or a European election, at the European elections last year I still voted for the Tories even when Philip was voting for Farage and the Brexit Party.
https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
(I've found myself in the unusual position of offering a point in defence of Hyufd. It's most uncomfortable.)